To RAID or not to RAID. That is the question.

[Jootec from Mars]

I'm in the progress of upgrading my PC. Having previously had a PC with two
ATA100 interfaces and two ATA66 interfaces, I know need to upgrade my
harddrives as I can no longer plug my 3 hard disks and 3 CD/DVD drives in
together. I'm going to use the 3 hard disks for another project.

I use my PC for all sorts of things - from playing the latest games to web
development to video editing and 3D rendering.

My new motherboard has 2 SATA interfaces and 2 ATA100 interfaces. The SATA
interfaces can be configured for RAID.

Originally I was going to get a 36GB 10,000 rpm SATA drive (as a bootdisk
and general data storage) and a 200GB 7,200rpm SATA drive(applications,
games, digital video storage and processing). And possibly later get a
another 200GB+ IDE drive so I could store shedloads of digital video on the
PC.

My question is (and performance is what I'm most after), would my original
SATA drive setup be best or would it be better to go for two 200GB 7,200 rpm
drives in a RAID 0 configuration. I do like storage space. 2 10,000rpm
drives are out of the question - not enough storage capacity.

Thanks in advance.

James

 

[Rod Speed]

I'm in the progress of upgrading my PC. Having previously had a PC with two
ATA100 interfaces and two ATA66 interfaces, I know need to upgrade my
harddrives as I can no longer plug my 3 hard disks and 3 CD/DVD drives in
together. I'm going to use the 3 hard disks for another project.

I use my PC for all sorts of things - from playing the latest games to web
development to video editing and 3D rendering.

My new motherboard has 2 SATA interfaces and 2 ATA100 interfaces. The SATA
interfaces can be configured for RAID.

Originally I was going to get a 36GB 10,000 rpm SATA drive (as a bootdisk
and general data storage) and a 200GB 7,200rpm SATA drive(applications,
games, digital video storage and processing). And possibly later get a
another 200GB+ IDE drive so I could store shedloads of digital video on the
PC.

My question is (and performance is what I'm most after), would
my original SATA drive setup be best or would it be better to go
for two 200GB 7,200 rpm drives in a RAID 0 configuration.

The short story is that you dont normally need RAID0 at all
with modern hard drives. You are likely to be quite disappointed
with the purported improvement in speed if you can even pick
it at all with a proper double blind trial without being allowed
to use a benchmark. And you'd have to have rocks in your
head to be taking the risk with that data using RAID0 when
you cant even detect any improvement in performance.

I do like storage space. 2 10,000rpm drives are
out of the question - not enough storage capacity.

And most data storage doesnt need speed anyway.

 

[Ron Reaugh]

The short story is that you dont normally need RAID0 at all
with modern hard drives. You are likely to be quite disappointed
with the purported improvement in speed if you can even pick
it at all with a proper double blind trial without being allowed
to use a benchmark. And you'd have to have rocks in your
head to be taking the risk with that data using RAID0 when
you cant even detect any improvement in performance.


And most data storage doesnt need speed anyway.

Well, while ignoring all the above nonsense, the issue is whether two 7200
RPM(200GB) RAID 0 will provide significantly better performance than a
single 10K RPM Raptor. That answer is: no major improvement.

Why not get the 74GB Raptor as they're a little faster than the older 36GB
version?

 

[Rod Speed]

Well, while ignoring all the above nonsense,

Even you should be able to do better than that pathetic effort Reaugh.

the issue is whether two 7200 RPM(200GB) RAID 0 will provide
significantly better performance than a single 10K RPM Raptor.

Crap. The real issue is whether the speed matters much with
modern 7200 rpm drives for that sort of data which by definition
isnt likely to be used all that much on a personal desktop system.

That answer is: no major improvement.

Why not get the 74GB Raptor as they're a
little faster than the older 36GB version?

He said they aint big enough, stupid.

 

[Toshi1873]

I'm in the progress of upgrading my PC. Having previously had a PC with two
ATA100 interfaces and two ATA66 interfaces, I know need to upgrade my
harddrives as I can no longer plug my 3 hard disks and 3 CD/DVD drives in
together. I'm going to use the 3 hard disks for another project.

I use my PC for all sorts of things - from playing the latest games to web
development to video editing and 3D rendering.

My new motherboard has 2 SATA interfaces and 2 ATA100 interfaces. The SATA
interfaces can be configured for RAID.

Originally I was going to get a 36GB 10,000 rpm SATA drive (as a bootdisk
and general data storage) and a 200GB 7,200rpm SATA drive(applications,
games, digital video storage and processing). And possibly later get a
another 200GB+ IDE drive so I could store shedloads of digital video on the
PC.

My question is (and performance is what I'm most after), would my original
SATA drive setup be best or would it be better to go for two 200GB 7,200 rpm
drives in a RAID 0 configuration. I do like storage space. 2 10,000rpm
drives are out of the question - not enough storage capacity.

RAID0 - twice the chance of data loss for marginal
performance gain. Modern hard drives can easily keep up
with video editing requirements (even my 5400rpm 160Gb
WD can manage a sustained 12MB/s when capturing).

Use the 36Gb (or 72Gb) drive as your
boot/system/application drive. Set the 200Gb aside for
digital video work. Don't store apps/software on the
200Gb drive.

It's better to keep all of your apps/software on the
primary disk to make it easier to create snapshot images
of your PC setup using a drive imageing program (like
Ghost). If you're doing video, that's something that
will save you a good bit of grief when something else
that you install hoses half a dozen codecs.

 

[Ron Reaugh]

Crap. The real issue is whether the speed matters much with
modern 7200 rpm drives for that sort of data which by definition
isnt likely to be used all that much on a personal desktop system.



He said they aint big enough, stupid.

The 74GB Raptors are faster cretin.

 

[Rod Speed]

The 74GB Raptors are faster cretin.

He said they aint big enough, ****wit.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Well, while ignoring all the above nonsense,

So you decided to add some of your own. Good show, Ron.

the issue is whether two 7200 RPM (200GB) RAID 0 will provide
significantly better performance than a single 10K RPM Raptor.

That answer is: no major improvement.

Clueless. Anyone using that big a storage is using large files and doing
large sequential accesses. RAID 0 will improve significantly on those
and that is where it is noted.
Small files will not improve much or not at all but then, who'll notice.

Why not get the 74GB Raptor as they're a little faster than the older 36GB
version?

Ignore any advice from people who arent even capable of doing
the simplest tasks such as setting up their newsclient properly.

 

[Arno Wagner]

I'm in the progress of upgrading my PC. Having previously had a PC with two
ATA100 interfaces and two ATA66 interfaces, I know need to upgrade my
harddrives as I can no longer plug my 3 hard disks and 3 CD/DVD drives in
together. I'm going to use the 3 hard disks for another project.

I use my PC for all sorts of things - from playing the latest games to web
development to video editing and 3D rendering.

My new motherboard has 2 SATA interfaces and 2 ATA100 interfaces. The SATA
interfaces can be configured for RAID.

Originally I was going to get a 36GB 10,000 rpm SATA drive (as a bootdisk
and general data storage) and a 200GB 7,200rpm SATA drive(applications,
games, digital video storage and processing). And possibly later get a
another 200GB+ IDE drive so I could store shedloads of digital video on the
PC.

My question is (and performance is what I'm most after), would my original
SATA drive setup be best or would it be better to go for two 200GB 7,200 rpm
drives in a RAID 0 configuration. I do like storage space. 2 10,000rpm
drives are out of the question - not enough storage capacity.

My present opinion is that having single dirves is bad enough.
With RAID-0 you get the root of the individual failure probabilities
as combined failure probability. E.g. when you have 1% failure rate per
year for one drive, RAID-0 gets 10% per year!

Personally I have even marginally important stuff on RAID-5 by now.

Arno

 

[Rod Speed]

Ignore any advice from people who arent even capable of doing
the simplest tasks such as setting up their newsclient properly.

Ignore all the shit from pathetically anal trolls that have nothing
better to do with their time except troll and rant about newsclients.

 

[chrisv]

Ignore all the shit from pathetically anal trolls that have nothing
better to do with their time except troll and rant about newsclients.

I think it's a valid point. If someone is too stupid and lazy to fix
his broken newsreader, why should their advice be taken seriously?

 

[Rod Speed]

I think

Obvious lie. You just obsess.

it's a valid point.

No surprises there. You're one of those pathetic
anals that only ever posts about how others post.

If someone is too stupid and lazy to fix his broken newsreader,

Only a pathetically anal troll would ever claim its broken.

why should their advice be taken seriously?

Because their advice may well be useful ?

Wota clown.

You're always welcome to cut your nose off to spite your face, child.

Better to cut a tad lower tho and do the world a service.

 

[chrisv]

Obvious lie. You just obsess.

Bald-faced lie from Ron^Hd.

No surprises there. You're one of those pathetic
anals that only ever posts about how others post.

Another bald-faced-lie from Ron^Hd.

Only a pathetically anal troll would ever claim its broken.

Idiot. It is broken.

Because their advice may well be useful ?

Unlikely, in Rod^Hn Reaugh's case.

Wota clown.

Wota wanker.

You're always welcome to cut your nose off to spite your face, child.

I told you, Ron^Hd, I don't follow the advice of idiots like you.

Better to cut a tad lower tho and do the world a service.

Ignore the wacko stalker.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some pathetic little wanker desperately cowering behind
just the puerile shit thats always pouring from the back of it.

 

[Rita Ä Berkowitz]

Some pathetic little wanker desperately cowering behind
just the puerile shit thats always pouring from the back of it.

Rod, your turpentine soaked corncob must really be massaging your prostate
since this is the first time I agree with you. Your little friend should be
talking about the superiority of SCSI instead of browsers.



Rita

 

[Rod Speed]

Some rabid one eyed bigot entirely appropriately named
message just the puerile anal obsessed fantasys thats all it can ever manage.

 

[Mr. Grinch]

My question is (and performance is what I'm most after), would my
original SATA drive setup be best or would it be better to go for two
200GB 7,200 rpm drives in a RAID 0 configuration. I do like storage
space. 2 10,000rpm drives are out of the question - not enough storage
capacity.

RAID 0 Pros:
- bigger max volume size by combining drives. Means you don't have to
manage disk space between separate volumes if you just make one big volume
- better performance for SOME situations / applications

Cons:
- higher chance of failure
- failure will affect more data
- more complex setup and management of drives, depending on the volume
type, especially if it involves boot volumes

Unless you can be very specific about the benefit you're going to get from
Raid 0, I'd stay away from it. That is, maybe you need a volume bigger
than the single biggest drive you have. Or, maybe you've tested a specific
application that you run a lot, and it's much better on Raid 0.

Otherwise, I'd stay away from it. It's much easier to manage individual
drives and volumes. It's easier to replace them as required if there are
problems, or re-arrange them as required depending on your needs, or move
them between machines should the need arise. All in all, dealing with
individial drives is just easier and more flexible. And, you CAN get
performance benefits running single drives, by splitting out your tasks to
different physical drives. I.E. OS, Apps, Swap, and any application
specific disk IO can be sent to separate drives. Now this must be done by
you, the user, in your config of your apps and system, to get the best
benefit, where as with Raid 0 it's just going to automatically split up the
i/o between the drives and you hope for the best.

If you're the person who wants a minimum of issues and maximum of uptime,
stick with individal drives or go on to raid 1 / raid 5. If you have some
specific application that really will benefit from the speed or volume size
of raid 0, you can try it but be aware of the risks and potential issues.